Under the leadership of South Africa, the developing countries unveiled a statement saying ”the Doha Round is about development of developing countries, especially Least Developed Countries amongst them.” The statement spelt out in detail what the chair for non-agricultural market access (NAMA) negotiations ambassador Don Stephenson of Canada must do in his revised draft to capture the developmental dimension of the Doha round.

Immediately, the United States attacked the developing countries for raising such a statement, saying it will undermine the negotiations. ”We are very concerned about this proposal that came out today,” said Sean Spicer, spokesperson for the office of the U.S. Trade Representative. ”In fact, this proposal could signal the end of the Doha round,” he said, suggesting that developing countries will have to take the blame for the failure of the negotiations.

Developing country trade envoys said it is baseless to shift the blame on them. They say they are merely asking for an agreement on the basis of the mandate spelt out in Doha Development Agenda, the July 2004 Framework Agreement, and the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration of 2005.

”The majority of the members of WTO are committed to concluding the Doha round based on the development mandate,” South Africa's trade envoy to the World Trade Organisation Faisal Ismail told IPS.

”Since the July draft text was put on the table (by the chair for non-agricultural market access negotiations ambassador Don Stephenson), over 100 developing countries offered a substantial critique on what was missing in the draft, but the United States and the European Union continued to ignore our concerns and insisted the onerous burden imposed in the chair's text should be accepted, and the developing countries should negotiate on the basis of the text,” he said.

”The process that is being imposed by the U.S. and the EU is fundamentally unfair because developing countries are being asked to pay through hefty concessions even before the developed countries address that they are ready to offer to cut down farm subsidies,” he argued. ”This is simply unacceptable, and we will not be cowed down by the blame-shifting.”

At issue are the tariff-cutting ranges as well as flexibilities proposed by Stephenson. Developing countries argue that the chair's proposals are diametrically opposed to the principle of less than full reciprocity in which industrialised countries are required to undertake higher percentage cuts in import tariffs on their industrial products than the developing countries.

In sharp contrast, the industrialised countries led by the U.S. have favoured the chair's proposals. ”It is time for delegations to affirm that they will negotiate on basis of chairs' texts in both agriculture and NAMA, including the market access ranges and flexibilities contained in those drafts,” U.S. trade envoy Peter Allgeier said in a statement.

The U.S. maintains that it cannot secure an extension to its expired trade promotion authority unless it could satisfy its Congress with some ambitious market-opening incentives in developing countries. Consequently, it wants the developing world to agree to steep market access commitments in agriculture, industrial goods and services.

”We are not prepared to sign on a blank cheque merely to satisfy the U.S. Congress,” said one developing country trade envoy, who preferred anonymity. He argued that the U.S. has adopted an aggressive stance of squeezing every country without paying in return.

Several developing countries also pointed to the grave imbalance between the Doha agriculture and NAMA negotiations. Rich industrialised countries like the U.S., the EU countries and Japan want to pry open developing country industrial markets, said the South African envoy. But, he said, ”agriculture determines the ambition of the round,” arguing that ”NAMA modalities have to be built around and lead to a result comparable to what is achievable in agriculture.”

”The basic purpose of our document is to make a constructive contribution to the negotiations by restoring the balance to the NAMA negotiations,” Indian trade envoy Ujal Singh Bhatia told IPS. ”The statement merely contains what is enshrined in the Doha mandate.”

Several developing countries like India, Brazil, Venezuela and Barbados drew a sharp distinction between the existing draft parameters on agriculture and NAMA, saying that they can work on the basis of the chair's draft on agriculture but not NAMA modalities.

(END/IPS/EU/WD/IF/WT/RD/SS/07)

Source: IPS - Inter Press Service News Agency